Loading document...
| CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE | |
| 06 FEB 2014 | |
| READ BY C.S. | |
| FILE AWAY | |
| TO RELEVANT OFFICER ON FILE | |
Railtys Etlan Vanwin
Planning statement on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Division in respect of planning for the Reconstruction of the highway and footpaths, drainage, services, street lighting, street furniture and signage Section Of Derby Road From Junction Of Mona Street And Atholl Place Peel Isle Of Man
-14/00003/B
Statement prepared on behalf of the Planning and Building Control Division by Miss S E Corlett
1.1 The site is a section of Derby Road which is an arterial route into and out of the town centre from Atholl Place in the west out towards the Poortown Road (A20). To the north of this section of the road are 3, Derby Road, the Town Hall and the southern end of Mona Street. On the southern side of the road is the Corrin Hall and the grounds of Peel Cathedral which has an entrance onto Derby Road which is also next to the local police station.
1.2 Derby Road has a tarmacadam finish with footways on both sides and a covered bus shelter on the southern side and bus stop markings on the southern side of the road. There is walling of varying heights on both sides of the road: outside the Town Hall the walling is very low, rising to a much taller sandstone wall towards Mona Street. On the cathedral side the walling is reasonably consistent in height along the street with railings atop. Currently Derby Road is one way from east to west.
2.1 Proposed is the re-alignment and re-paving of both footways in 95mm thick random sized stone paving slabs including dimpled dropped kerbs in the area of the bus stops and the vehicular crossing of the footpath to give access into the town hall. Also proposed is the widening of the access into the Town Hall, from 7m to 10.25m and the provision of seating on top of the existing low stone wall. The walling on the southern side of the wall will be cleaned and retained as existing. The roadway will be re-finished in a buff grip finish on top of the tarmacadam with 100mm by 100mm granite setts at the edge and on each side of the 150mm by 150mm granite setts marking the eastern entrance into the newly paved area.
2.2 New signage, litter bins and manholes are to be installed and a new bus shelter. This will be a different design to the existing - a curved canopy with a frame with mesh back and solid sides. This will be 2.3m tall at its highest and 5m long with a seat included within it.
2.3 The plans show provision for the parking of two buses on the south eastern side of the road and the road narrowing by 1700mm at its eastern end at the entry to the roadway and by 1.6m to the west of the bus shelter.
2.4 This application is similar to an earlier unsuccessful proposal for road improvements. PA 13/00236 proposed repaving, changes to the alignment of the road as is proposed here and new street furniture. This current application differs from that in that:
2.5 The applicant also indicates that they have considered alternative locations for the bus stop but have ruled them out due to reducing the width of the road.
3.1 The Peel Local Plan excludes the principal roads from the land use zones and as such the site is designated simply as a road. The land uses on each side are civic purposes and Mixed Uses and all of the site and the buildings on each side lie within Peel's Conservation Area. The
proposal does not propose any change of use or significant new building or any significant change in traffic control or operation.
3.2 As such, the critical Strategic Plan policy to be applied is Environment Policy 35 which states:
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
3.3 Some aspects of the application are not material planning considerations and would not require planning permission – the painting of road markings for example and provision for a second bus to park alongside the road, the erection of road signs under Schedule 2 Class 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.
3.4 General Policy 2 states:
"Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.1 There was a previous application for a similar scheme (see Appendix Two) which was refused for the reason that, "The proposals as currently submitted take an insufficiently comprehensive and cohesive approach to the aims of public realm regeneration for this part of Peel, and consequently fail to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." The Inspector describes the existing streetsceene as comprising "unattractive, utilitarian, time worn materials that do little for this part of Peel" and that the case for regeneration is "clear cut". However, he has "significant reservations" about the scheme, considering that whilst certain elements, such as the relocation of the bus stands could be undertaken by the highway authority without permission, if they are an integral part of and flow from the proposals then they can be considered as a material part of the application. He considers that the proposal
does not represent a cohesive approach. He is not clear about the reason for including then removing the widening of the access into the town hall and wonders whether the limited width of the road at this point will result in a feeling of vulnerability for people waiting at the bus shelter.
4.2 He calls into question how the proposal will affect the future proposals for alterations to the entrance to the Cathedral and he describes this as a "less than clear relationship" and states, "My own view is that even if the Cathedral proposals are to come later, there should at this stage be a firm concept of the final outcome at what will be a key location in Peel and its Conservation Area. As things stand, it is far from self evident that the shelter might not inhibit an overall outcome that preserves, or better enhances, the appearance or character of this location" (paragraph 28). He refers to the suggestion from the owner of 10, Mona Street regarding an alternative layout which effectively separates the two bus stops and moves them further from his home and recommends that this merits a "reasoned response" rather than reliance upon the fact that the stops can be there without permission under Highways legislation. He suggests that a lack of reasoned response indicates to him that "it has not been demonstrated that an optimum scheme is being promoted weighing residential amenity along with transport and townscape aims" (paragraph 29).
4.3 He also expresses concern about the use of granite setts as an extensive surface as these can be slippery when wet and can be tricky to walk with high heels or for those with ambulant disabilities and their use in areas with concentrated pedestrian activity much be called into question.
4.4 He commends the use of paving rather than in-situ concrete along the carriageway ends and supports the introduction of the carriageway pinchpoint and traffic calming strip which will "signal a change in highway character rather than physically force reduce speed, which would risk the jolting, braking and abrupt changes of engine tone that Mr. Spencer fears" (paragraph 31).
4.5 He concludes by stating, "Taken as a whole, however I found the Planning Statement to be mainly about general principles with insufficient context regarding the specific aims and details of these particular proposals. The drawings, for example, indicate that lamp posts will be replaced, but without details of the intended standards or illumination. My conclusions and recommendation, if accepted, would represent a set-back for those promoting regeneration at Peel, but permanent measures are proposed, at a sensitive location and as a Phase 1 Pilot for other locations. Getting it right should precede implementation" (paragraph 32).
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application.
5.2 The owner of 10, Mona Street objects to this application by way of a letter dated 28th January, 2014. The gist of his concerns relate to the retention from the earlier unsuccessful scheme of the two bus bay waiting area opposite his house which he suggests creates noise, fumes and disturbance to him and that people can see into his property from the top level of a double decker bus. He recommends that fewer buses and different arrival and departure times may be a better solution as there appear to be relatively few people on the buses. He also considers that having the bus stop directly alongside the lych gate and opposite the entrance to the town hall is inherently dangerous. He also disappointed not to have been consulted on the scheme. Finally, he draws attention to a current application for a tram and bus interchange in Ramsey and there is provision within those plans for noise reduction due to the proximity of nearby residential property and he wonders why the same consideration has not been given in this case. That application includes a Noise and Vibration Investigation including existing noise levels of trams and buses in the area. An excerpt from this is included at Appendix Three.
6.1 The critical consideration is whether the proposed scheme preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and whether the scheme provides for safe and convenient use by pedestrians and users of the bus network without adversely affecting the amenities of those who live in the vicinity of the site. This should be judged particularly in terms of the impact of the new bus shelter, the materials to be used in the paving and surfacing and the provision of the new seating and entrance modifications outside the Town Hall. Regard should also be had to the conclusions of the inspector in the case of the previous application and whether his concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
7.1 It is not for the Planning Authority to make a formal recommendation on an application which is submitted on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure of which the Planning Authority is part. However, if the planning application is recommended for approval, it is recommended that consideration be given to the attaching of the following conditions:
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown